The Karnataka High Court has sharply criticized the Whitefield Police Station in Bengaluru over the alleged illegal arrest of activist Mohan Gowda in connection with a Facebook post celebrating the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra's show in the city.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by Gowda, observed that the police appeared to have repeatedly violated legal safeguards governing arrests. The Court expressed concern that the police had issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring the petitioner to appear before investigators within three days, but had already taken him into custody before the notice period expired.
According to submissions before the Court, Gowda, a member of the Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi, had earlier submitted a representation seeking cancellation of a comedy show by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, citing concerns regarding communal harmony. After the event was reportedly cancelled and shifted, Gowda posted on Facebook describing the development as a "victory for Hindu unity."
The Whitefield Police subsequently registered an FIR invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including allegations relating to public mischief and dissemination of false information. Gowda contended that the police travelled to Udupi, took him into custody, and brought him to Bengaluru despite the statutory notice requiring his appearance at a later date.
The High Court questioned the basis of the police action and noted that concerns about public disharmony appeared speculative. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that the police had seemingly developed a pattern of issuing notices and then arresting individuals before they could comply with them.
Observing that such conduct undermines procedural safeguards introduced under the BNSS, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and concerned officers to personally appear before it and explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest.
The Court also granted interim protection to the petitioner and stayed further proceedings arising from the impugned FIR while the matter remains under consideration. The case has reignited debate over police accountability, procedural fairness, and the protection of free speech in the digital age.